Tea (Parties) and Sympathy
In the current issue of the New Yorker, my old classmate Ben McGrath goes inside the Tea Party movement. Ben is determined not to write-off the Tea Partiers as right-wing kooks. Still, try as he might, I think he edges clearly in that direction by the end of his profile. Still, he warns of the danger of underestimating the Tea Party phenomenon:
The involvement of people like Dick Armey in the Tea Party movement led many Democrats, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, to dismiss the significance of the activism as a creation of right-wing moguls. FreedomWorks and a host of lobbying firms and think tanks, including Americans for Tax Reform, the Club for Growth, Campaign for Liberty, and the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, sponsored the [Tea Party] march in Washington last September. Lobbyists and think tanks in turn rely on financial support from corporate interests with enormous stakes in much of the prospective legislation on Capitol Hill.“Astroturfing” is the critics’ preferred term for this phenomenon, with its imputation of a synthetic, top-down structure to contrast with the outward appearance of grassroots independence. Yet the presence of paid FreedomWorks operatives at meetings like the one in Cicero, [New York], handing out Obamacare Translator leaflets and legislator “leave-behinds,” would be cause for greater skepticism if the civilians in attendance weren’t already compiling binders of their own and reciting from memory the troublesome implications buried on page 59 of House Resolution 3200. The blogosphere can make trained foot soldiers of us all, with or without corporate funding
McGrath takes Democrats to task for underestimating the Tea Partiers:
Most liberals mistook [Doug] Hoffman’s eventual defeat [in the NY-23 congressional race]…as a sign that the movement had overshot. “If the tea party right can’t win there, imagine how it might fare in the nation where most Americans live,” Frank Rich wrote in the Times, noting that New York’s Twenty-third District is ninety-three per cent white. The headline over Rich’s column was “THE NIGHT THEY DROVE THE TEA PARTIERS DOWN.” Rich and others, including senior members of the Obama Administration, underestimated the strength of the movement, and the extent of the resentment that fed it. By fixating on the most egregious protest signs, and making sport of Tea Party infighting, they ignored the movement’s gradual consolidation.
Whereas liberals persuaded themselves that the Tea Parties were too extreme to be politically effective, McGrath says the election of Scott Brown proved otherwise:
The lesson that the Tea Party movement seems to have learned [from Hoffman's defeat is] to respect local preferences and work selectively within the system. Rather than back a libertarian third-party candidate, the activists this time rallied behind the equivalent of Dede Scozzafava. Scott Brown at one point likened himself to a “Reagan Democrat” and is something of a moderate on abortion rights. One of Dick Armey’s associates told me in November, “We have got to show that this movement can be successful outside the South.” Now they have, and New York’s Senator Chuck Schumer, who made the mistake of describing Brown as a “far-right teabagger,” in a last-ditch fund-raising appeal on behalf of Coakley, has invited talk of a movement to depose [Brown] in November.
Good work, Ben.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
38 Responses to “Tea (Parties) and Sympathy”
Until either party comes up with some sort of real plan to bring back fiscal responsibility, you can expect the tea party groups to hang around out there. When some people, who only know what the media tells them, repeat that ignorance, it only riles the groups. But insults and carefully chosen examples seem to be currently accepted forms of reporting nowadays.
You bring me a tea party member as upset about DADT or DOMA as s/he is about GOVERNMENT, and I might take his/her freedom-fighting cred for granted.
You either love all your fellow people's freedoms as much as your own, or you are merely another plebeian fighting for your tribe, thus serving the interests of the privileged classes, who gladly take your support and then laugh at you all the way to the bank.
Alex – people such as you seem to be, demanding the world conform to your singular view of the ways thongs are and should be, scare me more than any Tea Partyer ever could.
And I, for one, support the Tea Party's attempt to try and get the attention of Washington and get the message across that the insane spending of OUR money has to stop. And I also support repeal of DODT. But I don't support gay marriage. But I do support abortion rights, but not without restrictions.
In other words, I am like most people a mix of ideas from both sides. I do however despise those on either side that demand an orthodoxy in viewpoints.
I will turn the tables on you, in fact. Anyone that cannot freely and gladly accept that others will agree with them on some points, and disagree on others, and still remain civil is nothing but a wannabe demagogue.
And that description seems to fit you based on your postings to a 'T'.
Oh, and if you are exceedingly short, then I would also add, as Buddy said, that you are an angry elf.
“Alex – people such as you seem to be, demanding the world conform to your singular view of the ways things are and should be, scare me more than any Tea Partyer ever could.”
It's Axel, dude.
It's funny, I hear people calling me “Alex” as often as I hear Americans mixing up Switzerland and Sweden…
Anyway, people who aren't disgusted by DOMA or DADT are obviously dumber than me. I mean, somethings must always be self-evident, and when one is lucky enough to have the neurological capacity to embrace the self-evident, one must always defy the simpler, those of weaker thought.
I see you the way you would see a man trying to make a person who believes in gravity reconcile with a cretin who says gravity is made up. DOMA and DADT are evil – I hate those who support them, and I hate those who do not hate said supporters.
“I will turn the tables on you, in fact. Anyone that cannot freely and gladly accept that others will agree with them on some points, and disagree on others, and still remain civil is nothing but a wannabe demagogue.”
I believe that people who reject empiricism endangers the tribe, as surely as a member who prefers to sow discord and disunity over imagined, religious or aesthetic grievances rather than collect firewood or watch for predators is betraying his own, hiding behind pillars of society he obviously does not respect in the first place.
The Family values bigots play by Queensbury rules when they are attacked, and then immediately go below the belt or even go at you with their teeth when they have the chance.
Homosexuals will never be liabilities to the Abrahamic religions. Abrahamic religions will always be a liability to homosexuals. I am neurologically incapable of not hating homophobes.
I'd be interesting if someone could obtain some polling data from the Tea Party movement.
My general assumption regarding the Tea Party movement is that it consists of two main factions: a libertarian faction that has no love for either the Republicans or Democrats and a conservative faction that has strong partisan ties to the Republican Party.
It would interesting to know:
1) What proportion of the Tea Party movement's members belong to the libertarian faction and what proportion of its members belong to the conservative faction?
2) What proportion of the Tea Party movement's members are registered Republicans and what proportion of its members are registered Independents or members of a third party?
3) What proportion of the Tea Party movement's members voted for Bush twice, what proportion voted for Bush once, and what proportion never voted for him?
I think the answers to these questions would be extremely telling. If the numbers are 50-50 or 40-60, it would suggest a very divided movement–divided along ideology and along partisan lines. On the other hand, if the numbers are more like 80-20 or 90-10, that would suggest that one faction has completely dominated the movement and that the other faction doesn't really much common ground with the general movement.
Has anyone come across any data on this?
A – Sorry I misread your name.
B – I can see what you like Axel – you must envision yourself as another Axel Rose.
C – READ, moron. I said I support the repeal of DADT (although I did misspell it in my previous post)
D – It is obvious that you are only a troll, and I will no longer feed the troll.
Schaden – , we don't call each other “moron” on this site. We are actually aiming for a higher standard, so please keep this in mind if you plan on becoming a regular thanks.
Nic, you raise an excellent question and I too would love to see an accurate breakdown of demographics with respect to the tea party folks.
David, given the presence of Dick Armey, the Club for Growth, and the Ayn Rand Center in the Tea Party movement, it's not surprising that moderates and liberals view it with a certain amount of suspicion. That said, IF the movement was to become genuinely viable, in an inclusive populist way, then I would be willing to take it more seriously.
“my mind is in a deep rut and instinctively dismissing of all dissent, and I am beyond grateful of this fact”
So we have noticed.
Cheap shot DLS. You know what he's saying. Axel's reference is to “gay rights, waterboarding, the invasion of Iraq, first-trimester abortions”, in other words things that should be painfully obvious to any thinking person. Get out of your own rut. Willful dismissing of context is exactly why communication breaks down. Try harder to be honest.
And you consider Axel's rants within “your” policies? I guess that there is one standard for the left-leaning posters, and another for the right.
Another wonderful example of staying within the boundries of the policies. Calling and/or implying that another poster is dishonest is OK?
Again, I guess it depends on which side of the aisle you are here, huh?
Cheap shot DLS. You know what he's saying.
Sure — do you, though?
“Willful dismissing of context “
Nope. Trimming (in case you didn't understand).
“Calling and/or implying that another poster is dishonest is OK?”
I just ascribe it to frustration. To some people, after all, Obama is proving to be a “corporatist” “Third Way” Democrat, a quasi-republican, if they were (wrongly) to be believed.
Meanwhile, of tea partiers and Republicans in trouble — in Texas, a story of some interest:
“An obscure candidate with backing from the 'tea party' movement threatens to deny a decisive victory to either Texas Gov. Rick Perry or Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the battle for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Texas.”
“A nurse and former Republican Party leader in Wharton County, in south Texas, Mrs. Medina is running on a platform of small government, states' rights, and the elimination of property taxes and gun-registration laws.”
“Her current level of support wouldn't be enough to win her a place on the November ballot, but it could keep the other candidates from receiving the 51% of the vote needed to avoid an April runoff.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487…
TMV has one policy and one standard. But there are a lot of bloggers here, and we do our best to support the standard by setting an example. I think the message is clear about the importance of civility, so let's move forward from there.
And where does she intend to get the funds to maintain the roads, the sewer systems, the local school system, the fire department, the police department, the local courts and the jails?
Agreed, and that was part of the point of my post. That is why I put “your” in quotes in my reply to JSpencer, and called him out on his double standard.
While I shouldn't have used the word moron, how can anyone argue that my reply was uncivil while ignoring the gross incivility of Axel's post that I replied to?
All I did was honest about my opinions. You might end up on the wrong side of the lines I draw in the sand, but here's the thing – it's completely up to a reader to decide whether that reflects on you or me.
Unlike some Tea Party candidates, Medina actually has the strong support of Ron Paul and his allies. I visited her website and wasn't particularly impressed with her online video ads. It's kind of hard to channel the Ron Paul fervor into state and local politics since so many of the issues that Ron Paul is really know for (opposition to wars of aggression, opposition to the Federal Reserve) are federal issues that don't really come up that often in state and local politics).
Medina won't win, of course. But as DLS suggests, she has the potential to swing the election result in favor of (or away from) one of the other two candidates.
test
“>the elimination of property taxes
And where does she intend to get the funds to maintain the roads, the sewer systems, the local school system, the fire department, the police department, the local courts and the jails?”
I don't know. Someone could ask her. (State sales taxes, she might say, for example.)
“It's kind of hard to channel the Ron Paul fervor into state and local politics since so many of the issues that Ron Paul is really know for (opposition to wars of aggression, opposition to the Federal Reserve) are federal issues that don't really come up that often in state and local politics).”
That only serves, in turn, to illustrate the type of system we have now, the commonly accepted state of affairs (people will look at you dumbfounded, or in worse ways, if you point out that it is questionable) in place of fully-fledged constitutional federalism. (We've seen inversion of it in earnest since the 1930s.)
It's ironic or even hypocritical that Ron Paul and his fans are preoccupied with the federal government — but it's easier to understood and “accept” once anyone pauses for a moment to think, and understand the major reason why — it's because the federal government is preeminent and is present where state and local government truly belong, instead — if government, at all (questionable when it's substituting for a viable private alternative).
On Civility: If it will assuage anyone's delusions of infallibility, I readily admit to being weak minded, a moron and intellectually undisciplined. Nor do I take offense at being reminded from time to time, though I do take offense at the insulting of others. In my simplistic view: others who comment have as much right to be wrong as I have to be correct, though I would prefer that both those who are incorrect and those who agree with me express themselves in civil terms.
On Tea Partiers: Their agenda is unclear to me. In this, I refer back to Nick's first comment. It is difficult to assess them as a group without being able to cohesively identify a particular, or dominant, ideology other than some level of dissatifaction and/or anger. One wonders whether, if polled on actual policy positions, they would remain a group at all.
Are you talking about the Tea Party or the Democratic Party?
“Are you talking about the Tea Party or the Democratic Party?
”
Well, my love, it could apply to any number of ideologically dysfuntional groupings, including TMV's eclectic porridge of authors and commenters.
“On Tea Partiers: Their agenda is unclear to me. [...] One wonders whether, if polled on actual policy positions, they would remain a group at all.”
This is shared not only by the GOP, but by conservatism (or opposition to liberalism) in general these days.
Tea Partiers — from Pew:
“… a number of public opinion trends suggest that the movement is likely to attract supporters as it becomes better known. These include: a surge in anti-incumbent sentiment, growing public concerns about big government and the budget deficit, and real anger at Wall Street and the big banks. Most importantly, these sentiments have increased markedly among political independents …”
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1482/tea-party-move…
But is the Tea Party advocating actual intelligence in governance? Or are they just blowing steam or parroting O'Reilly/Beck talking points?
The Tea Party have been known to say things like “keep your hands off my Medicaire” when talking health care reform. There's a lack of understanding about what government should do and what it shouldn't, and what it can do and what it can't. There's also a misunderstanding about the democratic process in general, one man's pork project is another man's vital economic development project. They're acting simplistically silly with little depth of vision.
Until the Tea Party brings an air of intelligent thought, careful research, and a consistently workable philosophy, I'll continue to think of them as Teabaggers.
Today NPR had people on talking about the Tea Party movement. My reaction to them and their attitude stays the same. They are emotional, use absolutely no logic and never really analyze the implications of what they scream about. They want simple solutions to extremely complex situations. And the Republicans cater to it, eschewing any attempts to actually solve our problems.
No doubt that Tea Parties have their share of conservatives.
But the grass roots beginnings brought more moderate independents. It also brought yours truly, a lifelong democrat. Yes I am right of center on social issues (understatement) but remain moderately centered just about everywhere else. Yet, the Tea Parties speak to me on another level.
Why am I listening?
Because the Tea Party movement is the ONLY VOICE out there speaking against the established corrupt political system.
When there is only ONE voice speaking against what most Americans detest (status quo DC politics), that's all many people hear. This is why Congress maintains its stellar 8-13% approval rating. It isn't GOP versus DNC – it's both of them versus the American people.
Jeff, your assertion ” Because the Tea Party movement is the ONLY VOICE out there speaking against the established corrupt political system” is strange. Sounds like you buy their spiel hook, line & sinker. The exrtemist body snatchers have encroached the Tea Party considerably bringing Beck, Hannity, money, Limbaugh, etc. etc. along for the ride. I am a member of a local non-government group trying to get a municipal and county government to merge, the Tea Partiers to whom we've been introduced up & down the Atlantic seaboard are for the most part radical reactionaries. They mainly participate because of personally defined issues (e.g. the IRS is after me) rather than concern for the general welfare. I hope the MA vote was more. It will be interesting to watch. I want to move away from what has been termed “epistemological imperialism.” I'll defend the right of the tea partiers to speak their peace but I'll not endorse their screaming.
Sales taxes, cause no one will drive out of state to get a reduction in their sales tax…
And sales tax are not in the least bit regressive… Republicans can always be relied to shaft the poor & less fortunate…
“Sounds like you buy their spiel hook, line & sinker. The exrtemist body snatchers have encroached the Tea Party considerably bringing Beck, Hannity, money, Limbaugh, etc. etc.”
I actually agree 100% with your statement, Waggle. The grass roots portion of the Tea Party is largely reactionary, 100% against the establishment, and wanting to get back to our Constitutional roots which has largely been urinated upon for many decades by both parties. When MONEY gets introduced into any movement, a bastardization of the movement is inevitable.
I warn ANY Tea Party supporters to ward off the Hannities and Limbaughs. Although Beck is slightly different in his approach, since he is approaching it in a Constitutional reform manner – he therefore gets some righful attention – and should. Hannity and Limbaugh are neo-con GOP talking point hacks and will subvert the Tea Party movement to acheive their political goals. Beck, on the other hand, remains a positive force for change. I know that many won't agree with that statement…. but my research says otherwise.
“Sales taxes, cause no one will drive out of state to get a reduction in their sales tax”
No true on the state level. For instance, my state still has a sales tax on food. In border cities, most people drive across the border to buy food. Same goes for gasoline where my state has the 3rd highest tax in the nation.
Don Q,
“Sales taxes, cause no one will drive out of state to get a reduction in their sales tax…”
Were you joking here? People do this all the time, when they are in a state with sales tax or high sales tax and are next to states with no sales tax or a low sales tax.
Example: Washington and Oregon
Example: Massachusetts and New Hampshire
“And sales tax are not in the least bit regressive…”
Presumably you were joking here.
“The grass roots portion of the Tea Party…”
“Three identical bills to prohibit Virginians from being required to purchase health care were approved on 23-17 votes in the Virginia Senate, where Democrats have a 22-18 majority.”
“… Virginia would be the second state behind Arizona to pass measures in defiance of the proposed federal legislation. …”
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9…
@JeffersonDavis: “the Tea Party movement is the ONLY VOICE out there speaking against the established corrupt political system…. [T]here is only ONE voice speaking against…status quo DC politics.”
That says what the Tea Party movement is against; it doesn't say what it's for.
What does it mean to be against corruption? I don't see the movement disassociating itself from Dick “To the victors go the spoils” Armey. I haven't heard any praise for Obama's actions to restict the role of lobbyists in government.
According to many on the political right, Obama is anything but a status quo politician. He's trying to push a hard-left agenda which will destroy America. I suspect that many–perhaps a majority–of people in the Tea Party movement would agree with that. Furthermore, when people on the left complain about the status quo politics, they generally mean that Washington is very reluctant to pass items on the liberal agenda. That brings us back to the question: What is the Tea Pary movement for?
The problem with McGrath's New Yorker article is that you come away from the article having seen a few trees but with no idea what the forest looks like. Nicrivera, in his comment above, asks some good questions.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV, Cindy Strout. Cindy Strout said: Tea (Parties) and Sympathy: In the current issue of the New Yorker, my old classmate Ben McGrath goes inside the T… http://bit.ly/8XHzM7 [...]
Missing: sarcasm tag…